In this series we will be giving 25 reasons why the Jehovah’s Witnesses have their Christology and Trinitarian theology wrong. We will make our case right from the Scriptures:
5. Heb 7:3 asserts that Christ had “neither beginning of days nor end of life.”
One of the central tenets of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs is that Jesus Christ is a created being, specifically Michael the Archangel. This means, there was a time a real, real long time ago when Jesus was created.
However, this position is Scripturally impossible as Heb 7:3 makes it clear that Christ is eternal. In this passage Jesus Christ and Melchizedek are compared due to the fact that the latter prefigured the former:
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually (Heb 7:1-3).
So, how is Melchizedek like Jesus?
1. He is the “King of Salem.” Christ is the King of the New Jerusalem.
2. He is a priest of the Most High God. Likewise, Christ is a priest who mediates between mankind and the Father.
3. He is the “king of righteousness.” Prophecies of King Jesus declare that he will be righteous (Is 9:7, Jer 23:5).
4. He is the “king of peace.” Jesus Christ is called the “Prince of Peace” in Is 9:6.
5. He has no explicit father or mother (which we may infer from the fact that he does not have a genealogy listed in the Old Testament.) Jesus Christ, though He has earthly parents, is conceived by the Holy Spirit and does not have original sin.* In this sense, He has no father and mother. *Being that Christ is truly human and divine, I am unsure what His XY chromosomes would contain, though I would suspect God would have constructed Mary and Joseph’s DNA creatio ex nihlo.
6. Without an explicit genealogy we do not know when Melchizedek’s life began or end. Paul (who likely wrote Hebrews) tells us explicitly that Melichizedek is like Christ in that “without genealogy”he had “neither beginning of days nor end of life.’
Number six allows us to draw one of two conclusions:
1. Melchizedek is literally like Christ in that he never had a beginning, which would make both Melchizedek and Christ both eternal.
2. Melchizedek is metaphorically* like Christ in that he seemingly never had a beginning. This would make Melchizedek created, but Christ eternal without beginning nor end.
*The force of a metaphor is lost when the metaphor does not have a parallel, literal reality.
So, in closing, anyway you dice it, Christ is uncreated for He never had a beginning. This means the Watchtower teaches lies when it asserts that Christ is a created being.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Is this from a believer in the Trinity. God sent his son, Jesus, to earth to die for us and have our sins forgiven.l He could not be part of a Trinity.
If God eternally exists as three Persons, then there is no contradiction in the Father being in heaven and the Son being on Earth (for a time.)
this statement contradicts itself. it would be less contradictory if you said Jesus is not God and try to make that argument instead.
Jesus being part of a trinity, and even the concept of the trinity itself, cannot be undermined by the fact that Jesus and the Father are seperate persons. their separate personhood is assumed under the trinitarian definition.
Mr. Truglia, You have shot yourself in the foot so many times I’m surprised you have any toes left.
“In this passage Jesus Christ and Melchizedek are compared due to the fact that the latter prefigured the former:”
How can the latter “prefigure” the former? The former always prefigures the latter.
First what is being discussed here is not Jesus’ longevity, but his Priesthood. Under the law The Aaronic priesthood was passed down from generation to generation. Aaron was appointed to be a priest, then his son, then his grandson and so on.
Melchizedek did not inherit his priesthood from anyone and since there is no record of children, he did not pass on his priesthood to anyone so he is a priest forever. Now as far as Jesus is concerned he was appointed to be High Priest by Jehovah God, so he did not inherit his priesthood in the manner of The Aaronic Priesthood and Jesus will never die he also is a priest forever. (Heb 3:1) His being “without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” refers to his priesthood. Jesus’ genealogy can be found at Matt. 1:1-16 and at Luke 3:23-38 and at Lk. 3:38 Jesus is referred to as Son of God
“2. He is a priest of the Most High God. Likewise, Christ is a priest who mediates between mankind and the Father.”
Second, If Jesus is God, how can he be a mediator between God and man?
“…Melichizedek is like Christ in that “without genealogy” he had “neither beginning of days nor end of life.’”
So is Melichizedek an eternal being?
“So, in closing, anyway you dice it, Christ is uncreated for He never had a beginning.”
Jesus had aa beginning.
Micah 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. R S
John 1:14 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.
What do the words origin and only-begotten mean?
https://www.scribd.com/document/135603404/Jesus-is-Not-Jehovah
Daniel, it appears you have several interpretive issues here. If you are willing to be persuaded by evidence and logic, I am happy to help you in this regard.
Now, I am honestly not trying to be snarky or make fun of you. For example you write:
“How can the latter “prefigure” the former? The former always prefigures the latter.”
The sentence in question, which you do not understand says: “In this passage Jesus Christ and Melchizedek are compared due to the fact that the latter prefigured the former:”
Now, obvious the former chronologically in time comes before the latter. However, Christ did not become flesh until about 1800 years after Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. So, in a literal, literary sense and even in a physical sense the latter in the above quoted sentence of mine (Melchizedek) preceded the former (Jesus).
As for your interpretation about “what is being discussed here is not Jesus’ longevity, but his Priesthood” this would be true. The point of Heb 7:1-3 is to comment on how Jesus Christ’s priesthood is in the order of Melchizedek. However, this is not the point under contention, rather, we are trying to make sense of the literal wording that Christ is like Melchizedek in that “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.”
It appears you have no answer for this, other than ignoring the wording that says Christ had no “beginning of days.” However, to do this is to miss the literary element that surrounds Melchizedek that Hebrews is pointing to (no genealogy) and its parallel in literal reality (that Melchizedek is “like the Son of God” inasmuch he has no “beginning of days.”
Your failure to comprehend this leads to you completely misunderstanding the text in question. I do not think that you fail to comprehend I as a matter of innate reading comprehension, but rather you are not willing to comprehend it.
You ask rhetorically, “So is Melichizedek an eternal being?” The obvious answer is probably not, though the Scripture never definitively answers the question. Hebrews is saying that in a literary sense, Melchizedek enters the scene with no genealogy recorded, which seemingly reflects that he has no beginning or end of days. It may only seem this way, because there probably is no corresponding literal reality for Melchizedek as he likely had parents, a birth day, and a day that he died.
What you fail to understand is that Paul’s point in Heb 7:3 does not make sense at all if Jesus Christ had a beginning of days. If we can agree that Melchizedek had a beginning, then in what sense is he like Christ in that he had “no beginning?” Obviously, only in a literary sense, he did not have a recorded genealogy. So, the simile made between Christ and Melchizedek cannot work if Christ had a literal beginning of days.
For me to say, “My wife is like a beautiful flower,” a flower has to really exist. Otherwise, the similie cannot make sense. So, for Melchizedek to be “made like the Son of God” in that he had “neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Heb 7:3), Christ must literally have no beginning of days or there would be no sense in that Paul can make the comparison between the two.
**The subject (Melchizedek) of a simile must object (Jesus) which has a corresponding literal reality. This is basic grammar. So, if Melchizedek is like Christ in that he has no beginning of days, then Jesus must really have no beginning of the days. Otherwise, the simile does not work.
Now, onto other objections which are on different Christological subjects:
You write, “Second, If Jesus is God, how can he be a mediator between God and man?/”
You asked me a “how” question, instead of a “where.” So, I can point to you where in the Bible it says Christ is “the God” (Heb 1:9 in the original Greek, you can check your NWT interlinear if you want). I can also point to where the Bible says CHrist is our mediator. So, by default, we must affirm that Christ is both God and mediator, because the Scripture says both.
However, you asked “how.” It’s like asking me how God created the universe out of nothing. I don’t know how.
If you ask, “How can it work that Christ is God and He intercedes with God the Father,” well that is easy, the Scripture teaches that God is one, but a multiplicity of Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are the same God. Now, I can make all sorts of metaphors, such as the rays of the sun are separate from the sun, but the ray is from the sun but chronologically identical as the ray is just as old as the sun, and the compare the Son to the Father in this, but that gets besides the point. If God is one, but multiple is Personalities, then it works.
Heck, even a singular person can intercede on his own behalf if he is schizophrenic. I am not saying God is schizophrenic, but rather, I am making the point that your scoffing about the impossibility of God interceding with God is not even logically true.
“Jesus had aa beginning.
Micah 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old [OLAM], from ancient days.”
You may notice the word “olam” in there. That’s the original Hebrew word for what you translate “is from old.” The problem is, that is not what the word means. It literally means “forever” in almost every single Biblical usage (208 of them), because there might be two exceptions. (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/olam_5769.htm)
So, you literally disprove yourself with your own verse. Micah 5:2 says that Christ’s origins are from “of forever” or rather “of eternity.” Meaning, there was never a time He had an origin.
You also ask, “What do the words origin and only-begotten mean?”
Well, we already looked at what the Bible says of Christ’s origin in eternity pass, but how about “only-begotten.” Now, according to the Bible, it says in Acts 13:30-33–
But God raised Him from the dead; and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today i have begotten You.’
So, according to Paul, where in the Old Testament did God make a promise “to our children in that He raised up Jesus?” In the second Psalm where it is, “You are My Son, today I have begotten You.” Begotten refers to the resurrection, and there is nowhere in the Bible that it says “begotten” refers literally to Christ’s creation. It over and over says Christ is begotten of the Father, but the only time a day for this is given, it is in Acts 13:33 quoting Psalm 2. Hence, you Biblically do not have the evidence to support your claim. Christ is begotten inasmuch as He is resurrected from the dead (and Jehovah’s Witnesses deny He resurrected in the body, a direct contradiction of what the Bible literally says, but as we can see, much of their doctrines contradict the literal meanining of Scripture and defy grammar.)
I hope this is all helpful for you.
All the best,
Craig
“Now, obvious the former chronologically in time comes before the latter. However, Christ did not become flesh until about 1800 years after Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. So, in a literal, literary sense and even in a physical sense the latter in the above quoted sentence of mine (Melchizedek) preceded the former (Jesus).”
My mistake. I misunderstood.
“However, this is not the point under contention, rather, we are trying to make sense of the literal wording that Christ is like Melchizedek in that “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.””
Melchizedek…, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. There is no mention of a father or mother. Does that mean he didn’t have any? Of course he did. It’s just not mentioned in the OT text. You have to understand who Paul was writing to.
The Hebrew Christians would have understood this passage in the context of The Aaronic Priesthood. (See my above post) If we were to take the above statement literary, Melchizedek would be an eternal being. Jesus’ Priesthood (like Melchizedek’s) is the same. He did not inherit it from a predecessor (He was appointed) and did not pass it on to anyone plus he is a priest forever because he will not die. In Melchizedek’s case, no record of death.
Jesus is a created being.
Micah 5:2 2 And you, O Bethʹle·hem Ephʹra·thah, The one too little to be among the thousands of Judah, From you will come out for me the one to be ruler in Israel, Whose origin is from ancient times, from the days of long ago.
If we to understand “from the days of long ago.” to mean as you say “forever”, than this scripture is horribly contradictory.
If you have an “origin”, you can’t be a forever being. If you are a “forever” being, you can’t have an origin.
John 1:14 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.
1 John 4:9 9 By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him.
Both of these scriptures speak of Jesus’ pre-human existence.
“My mistake. I misunderstood.”
No problem.
“Melchizedek…, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. There is no mention of a father or mother. Does that mean he didn’t have any?”
Probably not, but the point is that he did not have a geneology where we can glean these things, so in a literary sense he had no beginning, end, father, or mother.
“If we were to take the above statement literary, Melchizedek would be an eternal being.”
Not exactly. He would be “like” an eternal being in that he des not have those things in the list. To be like an eternal being, there must be a real eternal being to be compared to. Christ is being compared to. So, Christ is eternal.
“If we to understand “from the days of long ago.” to mean as you say “forever”, than this scripture is horribly contradictory.”
No, logic dictates that this is not so and so does Christian history. One of the earliest writings outside of the Bible, Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians, called Christ “generate and ingenerate.” In plain English, that means generated and not-generated. So, the way Christians have historically understood the fact that the Bible says Christ has an origin but it was before the beginning (John 1:1) and from “forever” (Micah 5:2) is by saying that Christ is eternally generated from the Father. This means, His origin is from the Father as light is from the sun, but there is no time of creation, as light is just as old as the sun so it Christ as old as the Father (He is eternal, that is.)
Now, to be saved, you do not need to affirm all of these fine details. Simply affirming that the Scripture calls Christ “the God” and worshiping Him as Thomas did and the elders in heaven (Rev 5) is sufficient.
“Both of these scriptures speak of Jesus’ pre-human existence.”
You ignored Acts 13, where clearly being begotten happened on the day of resurrection, not creation.
God bless,
Craig
“To be like an eternal being, there must be a real eternal being to be compared to. Christ is being compared to. So, Christ is eternal.”
As pointed out earlier, Jesus is not an eternal being. He had a beginning and he died
Again Jesus is like Melchizedek In his priesthood.
Heb. 7:3b “…but having been made *like* the Son of God, he remains a *priest* perpetually”
“If we to understand “from the days of long ago.” to mean as you say “forever”, than this scripture is horribly contradictory.”
“No, logic dictates…”
You can’t be serious……! With all due respect to Ignatius he is not an inspired writer of scripture. (2 Tim. 3:16)
“So, the way Christians have historically understood…”
Christendom is the apostate form of Christianity that The Bible writers warned about.
https://www.scribd.com/document/135607041/The-Apostasy
“In plain English, that means generated and not-generated…”
I’m sorry to have to say this, but that’s just Babylonian non-sense (Rev. 17:5; 18:4) To babel is to speak in non-sense.
Nowhere in Rev. 5 does it call Jesus ”The God”.
We don’t have a problem with Jesus being call “a god” because the scriptures do.
Isaiah 9:6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,. . .(Footnote Or, “Mighty Divine One.” Heb., ´El Gibbohr´ (not ´El Shaddai´ as in Ge.
17:1); Sy, “Mighty God of times indefinite”; Lat., Deus fortis.)
Also John 1:1
**Goodspeed’s An American Translation, 1939, “the Word was divine”
**Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, “the word was a god.”
This will be my last post. You have all the facts you need.
Thank you for your correspondence.
Dan
Stay tuned for reasons 6-25 then !